Is tearing down statues the modern equivalent of the Nazi book burnings?

originally posted by: chris_stibrany
a reply to: ScepticScot

Because the ones toppling the statues know if it was up to a sensible vote, most of the statues would be kept.

Depends on what statue.

a reply to: AutomateThis1

That being said I don't think these statues should be destroyed. Perhaps a good idea would be to place them in a museum dedicated to American history. That way if a person wishes to see them they can.

But before a statue gets whisked away into a museum there should be a vote. Ask all of the residents who live in the town or city whether or not the statue should go. Quite simple really.

A statue can instill a sense of curiosity about what is being displayed, so even if the statue is of a racist sunnavabitch a person may feel the spark of motivation to figure out more about the figure being represented and the what that person did or didn't do, and more about the era it happened.

You deserved more stars for this. I wish our country had dealt with all this earlier on. It says a lot that we didn't

I think there's still a lot of good that can come from discussing all of it though

originally posted by: FlukeSkywalker
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

The phrase "history repeats itself" is propaganda and defeatist. If anyone tells you "history repeats itself" or "it's always been this way" or "we'll never know" or "you can't have the sweet without the sour" or "no pain no gain", etc, is a control mechanism only being used to help continue the lie of our reality; only being used to help continue the false creation of ups and downs in order to create drama, stories, entertainment.

The only reason this abomination of a reality is the way it is is because someone (someones), somewhere...want entertainment and drama. The only way to create drama is to create tension between 2 or more sides, which ends up creating the entertainment/drama necessary to fulfill this need.

This deserves a repost because relevance

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Seldom though it is that you and I agree on much, in this case, we're in complete agreement.

Books were burned that merely hinted at the remote possibility that they were written by Jews, or other undesirables.

a reply to: ScepticScot

I say keep them all. I look at it as a form of decoration first and something political like.....99th.

a reply to: Liquesence

Statues removal is not.

Beg to differ. Removal, or vandalism, in an attempt to hide any hint that there are stories out there that one might want to learn about, if you don't know it's out there to be learned, how then do you learn it.

Statues are there so that people will remember the stories, both the good parts, and the bad.

a reply to: Phage

Statues are meant to be a link, usually to the good admittedly, to the history. However, the link to the totality of the story is there to be found if one cares to look.

Removal of that link helps hide the story, which does nothing but harm.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Liquesence

Statues removal is not.

Beg to differ. Removal, or vandalism, in an attempt to hide any hint that there are stories out there that one might want to learn about, if you don't know it's out there to be learned, how then do you learn it.

Statues are there so that people will remember the stories, both the good parts, and the bad.

Statues are about honouring or glorifying people. Not remembering history.

a reply to: Phage

Other than my rights to view it where it was originally placed.

Why are my, and others, rights to do that, less important than others rights to be oh, so offended??

a reply to: ScepticScot

They are that, true. They are also a link to the history. If you can't see that, you're being willfully blind.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: ScepticScot

They are that, true. They are also a link to the history. If you can't see that, you're being willfully blind.

Replace statue with something else representing same period.

Problem solved.

a reply to: vonclod

but it does not tell you anything, what it might say to you, is up to you.

Exactly. Which is why they should remain public, if that's where they are to begin with.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Phage

Other than my rights to view it where it was originally placed.

Why are my, and others, rights to do that, less important than others rights to be oh, so offended??

There is no right to see a specific statue at a specific place.

a reply to: ScepticScot

So replace something that offends one group, with another that will, in all likelihood, offend someone else??

Some solution.

How about, instead, y'all learn the lessons that are there to be learned. Instead of allowing the statue to offend, why not instead use the statue as an opportunity to teach the reality.

Nope. Instead destroy it.

Not sure what that teaches, but I'm fairly sure it's nothing good.

a reply to: MetalThunder

Some of the same people endorsing todays removal of "offensive" statues, were some of the same ones so up in arms about the Taliban doing exactly the same thing...

There's a word for that...

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: ScepticScot

So replace something that offends one group, with another that will, in all likelihood, offend someone else??

Some solution.

How about, instead, y'all learn the lessons that are there to be learned. Instead of allowing the statue to offend, why not instead use the statue as an opportunity to teach the reality.

Nope. Instead destroy it.

Not sure what that teaches, but I'm fairly sure it's nothing good.

Which is why as said earlier that it should be decided through normal democratic means (at least in public spaces)

Removing a statue still isn't removing history or restricting the ability to learn it.

Just so I know I’m reading this right, is this the story so far:

Some white people bought black slaves from black slave owners and black slave traders in Africa and took them to other countrIes, without the slaves permission.

All the while, rich white guys are putting up statues of themselves, or statues put up by others, to tell everybody how great these guys are, without the townsfolk’s permission.

Now a bunch of people want to decide for everybody else how that bunch of historical figures are remembered by everybody, without the townsfolk’s permission.

Have I missed anyone else who thinks it’s their god given right to tell everybody else what to do or think?

a reply to: ScepticScot

It's the same right you have to be offended. I'm offended because I can't view them as they were placed should I so choose. Some seem to be offended because I can...odd that.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: ScepticScot

It's the same right you have to be offended. I'm offended because I can't view them as they were placed should I so choose. Some seem to be offended because I can...odd that.

The right to be offended or way or another isn't the same as the right to enforce your wishes on others.

If the majority of people want a statute removed you don't have a right to keep it there.

a reply to: seagull

Other than my rights to view it where it was originally placed.

Your right to view it where it was originally placed? How is that a right?

Art that shows up in the public square doesn't exist until people decide that it should

People can also decide it doesn't belong there

Its not a law of physics, its a human decision